Anecdotal Evidence

[Angrboda]

The formation of new opinion must always be checked by prior knowledge, else it is based on nothing but groundless supposition which is itself irrational.  You can't make a rational leap based on what you don't know.  Therefore the acquisition of new knowledge will always be conservative.  This is only sensible.  What are you suggesting, that one should depend upon an affirmative endorsement of evidence that one isn't qualified to understand?  


I think you're misunderstanding the application of Occam's razor here.  Whenever a hypothesis as endorsed by testimony requires the assumption of unevidenced components to one's model of reality, they automatically acquire a burden of unjustified necessities which is not so with the lie, mistake, or error explanations.  So it becomes a straightforward Bayesian choice of alternatives among competing hypotheses in which the hypothesis elucidated by testimony loses.  So, no, I think you are in error here.
 

I do agree, and I'm not saying, that we should fore go our background knowledge.   But we also need to examine where there are assumptions are in that background knowledge as well, and consider that we may be incorrect.

Do you have any practical advice on how this should be done? Consider that we might be incorrect, with reference to what? 

The problem I have, is that in this instance the caller implied much the same as you are here.   If we can just dismiss evidence without reason; as lying, mistake, or error in this way; then I think it gives credence to a number of groups, which I think we would both consider to be out in left field.

Well then it's a good thing that wasn't what I said. I specifically gave justifiable reasons why lie, mistake, or error should be considered more probable explanations than that given by testimony. To reiterate by way of example, suppose that someone told you what your favorite color was without you telling them. Upon inquiring, they say they read your mind. However as this would require the conjunction of two improbable facts, their mind reading you and the existence of telepathy, the combined probability would be lower than that they acquired the information through mundane means or just guessed. The extraordinary is always less probable than the mundane. The same would apply wherever the claim depends on presumed facts of the world that are not already in evidence. This is simply another aspect of relying on our background knowledge.

 I don't think that you can criticize the method in one instance, and endorse it in another; without being hypocritical.

They should be criticized where their method is in error. You need to be specific as to which aspect of their method you are referencing before throwing about accusations of hypocrisy. Criticizing the one that is unsound and not the other is not hypocritical. In as far as they are following sound epistemic procedure they do not deserve condemnation.

  I have even seen some here, who said they would deny evidence they had observed for themselves, using much the same words as you do here.

Given that you've already mischaracterized my position in this post, I'm inclined to dismiss this vague slur as more mischaracterization. Would you care to substantiate your charge with the actual words which you claim are similar to mine?